skins4ever28

Serious Question: Do you regret letting Cousins go?

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, volsmet said:


That was the best Kirk game imo, nobody healthy & he made a few spectacular clutch throws up in Seattle. 

No doubt, the pass at the end of the game was a dime and an even better catch by Doctson.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

He would still be the worst QB in the division, more than likely

 

Cousins is better than Wentz and easily better than Eli/Jones.   Dak is debatable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJHJR86 said:

This pretty much sums up the reason why Kirk was rejected by a decent portion of the fan base.  Stephen A. Smith essentially admitted to this on First Take.  

https://washington.cbslocal.com/2016/08/16/first-take-hosts-try-so-hard-to-spin-kirk-cousins-comments/

 

“I’ve told my teammates that I’d like to be the San Antonio Spurs of the NFL,” Cousins said. “Be super boring and maybe people at the end of the season go ‘Wow – they really had a good year and no one really talked about it.'”

 

He's getting his wish now.  The Vikings are 6-2 and barely discussed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine the value a team is going to get Andy Dalton at next year and he’s the same kind of QB as Kirk. Someone will get him for 6-8% of their cap. Fascinating how the NFL works sometimes. 
 

The Skins would be in the thick of the playoff hunt and NFC east with Kirk, so ya, it’d be great to have him this year, but I feel the same with Alex. 

Edited by wit33
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skins4ever28 said:

Im shocked so many of you still hate on Cousins.  Lol its insane to me.  Not worth the money?  Look what Alex smith did for the money.  Look what ANY OF OUR BIG PRICED PLAYERS HAVE DONE for the money?!?  If we had cousins right now, we never would be 1-7 and would be in playoff contention.  Instead just like BEFORE COUSINS, were talking about the freaking draft halfway through the season.  A lot of you guys took him for granted and didn't know a good thing when you had it.  Cowboy fans with Romo did it, Steeler fans do it with Ben. Ridiculous.


You can’t seriously believe we’d be in playoff contention if we flipped Keenum for Kirk. Minnesota nearly went to the SB with the former & missed the playoffs with the latter. Kirk Cousins would be getting throttled here.

 

Romo? Their 5th rounder, Dak, seems fine. 

28 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

Cousins is better than Wentz 


 

F07F7E7B-84FF-43E0-80E0-1245BA9C13B7.gif

I do love you all, but the QB talks are craziness. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

serious answer … no.  I liked Kurt and I would have liked to see him stay but at his contract price he's not worth it.  Yes he's doing a good job with the Vikings … but so did Case if you recall.  The Skins have more problems than QB and having Kurt here wouldn't fix any of them … in fact it would hurt the potential fixes by tying up a massive amount of cap. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BoycottEuphemisticFans said:

i saw the best QB they've had in 20 years and no one was close.

When you’re in the desert, beware of the mirage

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skins4ever28 said:

Im shocked so many of you still hate on Cousins.  Lol its insane to me.  Not worth the money?  Look what Alex smith did for the money.  Look what ANY OF OUR BIG PRICED PLAYERS HAVE DONE for the money?!?  If we had cousins right now, we never would be 1-7 and would be in playoff contention.  Instead just like BEFORE COUSINS, were talking about the freaking draft halfway through the season.  A lot of you guys took him for granted and didn't know a good thing when you had it.  Cowboy fans with Romo did it, Steeler fans do it with Ben. Ridiculous.

 

No, he was not worth the money that the Vikings paid him, imo.  But what I get pissed off about is the fact that they could have locked him up for 5 years (based on the one report of what he was asking for) at a contract he deserved back before the 2016 season and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  Instead we would have a really good/above average QB under a team friendly contract through 2020.

 

No real way to know what our record would have been last year with him or this year.  I'd like to think that we would have made the playoffs last year with Kirk under center, but honestly, we were winning games with Alex Smith until his injury.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reject the premise of the question unless we are specifically talking to bunging the chance to re-sign back in 2015?  Kirk was leaving after 2018,  unless after the front office franchised him a 3rd time, and that would have just cost too much.

 

Alex Smith's injury is really what ruined the QB situation on the team. Alex Smith was boring, methodical, but did just enough.  Once he went down with that devastating injury the QB situation as been a mess.  When Alex Smith was traded for it was impossible to foresee this scenario playing out besides the #LOLREDSKINS factor. 

 

If Alex Smith had never got injured we have no idea where things would have gone after the 6-3 start.  I don't think this suddenly is any kind of deep playoff team or anything like that, but I also don't think the team is nearly as bad as it is now.   They also don't likely feel the need to pull the trigger on Haskins and wait another offseason before addressing the next QB. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I reject the premise of the question unless we are specifically talking to bunging the chance to re-sign back in 2015?  Kirk was leaving after 2018,  unless after the front office franchised him a 3rd time, and that would have just cost too much.

 

Alex Smith's injury is really what ruined the QB situation on the team. Alex Smith was boring, methodical, but did just enough.  Once he went down with that devastating injury the QB situation as been a mess.  When Alex Smith was traded for it was impossible to foresee this scenario playing out besides the #LOLREDSKINS factor. 

 

If Alex Smith had never got injured we have no idea where things would have gone after the 6-3 start.  I don't think this suddenly is any kind of deep playoff team or anything like that, but I also don't think the team is nearly as bad as it is now.   They also don't likely feel the need to pull the trigger on Haskins and wait another offseason before addressing the next QB. 


One of the many reasons I hate paying 30 million for a QB, an injury leaves all of that salary on the pine & if you miss the evaluation you’re stuck. Deep rosters win, scheme & a few breaks get you to the Sb, QBs are more replaceable than most accept. Look at team after team win with $27 million in QB on the bench ... it’s just unnecessary to pay a QB that much. Matt Moore can come in & light up GB, that roster allows it, that play calling ... same with Foles, Bridgewater, Kyle Allen, Brissett, and anyone who ever replaces Tom Brady. If your offense isn’t moving the ball, it’s typically about the talent & scheme, not the QB. Bulger, Green & Warner lit it up fir the Rams.... Joe Gibbs lot it’s up with bums his first go around. Bring me cheap bums with nfl experience & load the roster up with the extra $25 million a year ... nearly $500,000 per player on your 53 man roster.... absolutely insane.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 1:41 PM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Just out of curiousity, where did you stand in the years leading to his departure?  I'm just interested to see if any of Kirk's biggest detractors are willing to own up.

 

 

Actually, I stood more with Kirk than against when he was here. But in his final year here, I supported the skins for dropping Kirk because money was too steep and he didn't seem to want to play here. Looking back at it now, we really screwed this up. I think the team should have done way more to work with Kirk because he's done a lot for us.

 

To me, it's more clearer now to see that our offense has significantly regressed after we lost Kirk. Certainly there is other components that plays into the regression of our offense such as the destruction of our good wide receiving core which is another story..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He played good while he was with the Redskins, but it wouldn't matter if he was still here. If the Redskins had a young Tom Brady they still wouldn't be anywhere close to being a good team.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Cousins is better than Wentz and easily better than Eli/Jones.   Dak is debatable. 

 

I like Cousins, but I'd take Wentz or Dak over him any day. Jones is admittedly too green at this point to really judge. If I was a Giants fan, though, I'd feel optimistic. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happend with Kirk is exactly what happens when BAFFOONS run your organization.  Absolutely stupid as **** people with serious pride issues.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think fans end up split on most of these guys, they (QBs) all have moments *of brilliance as well as moments of inexplicable failure. These guys all look incredible when it’s clicking. 

Edited by volsmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  I like KC but IMO, he will never take his team to the SB let alone the NFC Championship game.  He could surprise but when in big game he seems to choke.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RWJ said:

No.  I like KC but IMO, he will never take his team to the SB let alone the NFC Championship game.  He could surprise but when in big game he seems to choke.

 

I'll take that right now over the alternative.  It would mean there were big games to be in in the first place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a lesson in sports, especially with the recent success of the Nats and the Caps, it's that as long as you have a good team that is competitive enough to make the playoffs, you can win it all in the right year. Ovechkin was a choker, until he wasn't. The entire Nats roster were a collection of mental midgets who collapsed in big games, until they steamrolled much better teams.

 

So yes, Kirk was a huge loss for this team because they clearly downgraded, gave up a buttload of resources to replace him, and none of the replacements have come remotely close to matching his production. Only the biggest homers in the world will deny that the current craptastic situation of this team isn't due to letting good players walk away, rather than having a competent coaching staff and front office that knows how to use talent and build long-term success.

 

The "choker" label is the dumbest and saltiest label thrown around. And even if there is some truth to it, I would much rather watch Kirk choke in the playoffs than a team barely good enough to beat the Dolphins.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

If there is a lesson in sports, especially with the recent success of the Nats and the Caps, it's that as long as you have a good team that is competitive enough to make the playoffs, you can win it all in the right year.

 

So yes, Kirk was a huge loss for this team because they clearly downgraded, gave up a buttload of resources to replace him, and none of the replacements have come remotely close to matching his production. Only the biggest homers in the world will deny that the current craptastic situation of this team isn't due to letting good players walk away, rather than having a competent coaching staff and front office that knows how to use talent and build long-term success.

 

The "choker" label is the dumbest and saltiest label thrown around. And even if there is some truth to it, I would much rather watch Kirk choke in the playoffs than a team barely good enough to beat the Dolphins.


Why didn’t Minnesota improve when they moved from Keenum to Kirk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Smith as the contingency plan for Kirk leaving was not a bad one.  Was he overpaid? Probably, but contracts often look a lot worse than they actually are considering how they can be reworked or dropped later on all together.  It's not like Case/Colt/Haskins was the plan.  That happened due to a freak injury that there was no way to predict.

 

If Cousins was still here, and everything else was the same, the franchise would probably still be stuck in it's perennial 7-9/8-8/9-7 spot, giving Bruce Allen the continual fuel to make the claim that "we are so close"  I know right now, 7-9 doesn't seem so bad, but in reality this franchise probably needs a full-on embarrassing season like what is happening for any chance of real change to come. 

 

It took me a long time to be on the side of "we need to be awful" but the constant .500ish seasons have done little to nothing to bring change. 

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.